Women in Combat: The Last Bastion

WOMEN IN COMBAT:

THE LAST BASTION

Shirley

M.

Robinson

Beth Schneider replies: ... Inever said women were not

physi~present, only that mili-taryideas, especia1ly about com-bat, presume that we are not.

I am not simply an academic feminist reviewer: I pride myself on havina spent two years of my life orgaruzingAirForce women and men during the early 19705. I know first-hand what these women went through, how hard they worked, what promises were made to them and how few were kept I too saw military women resist its authority and

~licies.... I apl'laud Moran's efforts to further Change in that institution.

However, I continue to believe that until there are a great many more women like Moran in the military and a great many other civilian women who feel a responsibility for its. operations, the military itself wiU remain rnaIe-dominated and maintain an ideology that denies women's ex-perience in uniform and as veterans.

Remarque de la part des redactrices invitees pour ce

numero: Les coupures de presse qui prt?facent cet article tbnoignent

de la portee du debat feministe actuel sur la question des femmes et

de l'armee. Dans un article recent, dans le Toronto Star, intitule

"Les femmes partagent toute la misere, mais pas tout le pouvoir, dans

I'

armee", Rosie De Manna demande "pourquoi le font elles?"

La

meme question nous vient

a

I'

esprit, mais comme le montre

I'

article

de Shirley Robinson, les femmes entrent dans les forces armees

canadiennes pour les memes raisons qu'elles veulent devenir

mineurs, trtpaneuses, metallos et pompiers. Et elles devraient en

avoir le choix.

Bien que les femmes dans le mouvement pour la paix voient une

dichotomie dans le role des femmes comme agresseuses, les femmes qui

luttent pour la liberte et pour leur survie sous les dictatures

compren-nent neanmoins tres bien la necessite de leurs actions. Faire

des femmes les gardiennes d'un code moral superieur exclut

l'utilisa-tion de leur propre force physique, leur ote le choix de survivre, et

laisse les hommes sans blame en reduisant le dilemme moral qu'ils

devraient confronter.

Nous invitons vas commentaires.

- Marion Colby

Shelagh Wilkinson

The Toronto Star (5 October 1985)

Same training

Although females are barred from entering into

combat units, •they are required to undergo the same

basic training, adhere to the same rules and regulations,

experience the same physical punishment as their male

counterparts.

These young women willingly deliver themselves into

the hands of a military establishment that considers itself

above the equality provisions of the Canadian Charter of

Rights .and Freedoms - of 33 officer classifications, nine

are closed to women; and of 99 regular trades, 32 are

closed.

With the exception of those women chosen to

partici-pate in test programs begun in 1980 - Servicewomen in

Non-Traditional Environments and Roles - Canadian

women cannot join the infantry, artillery, serve on naval

warships or fly fighter aircraft. They are also excluded

from becoming radio operators, linemen, and all the

other professions that are considered combat-related or

combat-support.

And. yet, Canadian women still keep coming to

Cornwallis. There are now 7,529 women in the

Cana-dianarmed forces - 8.9 per cent of the entire military

population.

Why do they do it?

Rosie Di Manno

VOLUME 6, NUMBER 4

Commentfrom the Guest Editors: The newspaper and periodical

clippings that preface this article are representative of the scope of the

current feminist debate on the topic of women and the military. In an

article from the Toronto Star

(5

October

1985)

entitled "Women share

all hardships, but not all power

in

army," Rosie

Di

Manna asks "why

do they do it?" The same question occurred to the editors but, as

Shirley Robinson's article points out, women go into the Canadian

Armed Forces for the same reasons that they want to be miners,

oil

drillers, steel workers and firefighters. And the choice should be

theirs.

Although women

in

the peace movement see adichotomy

in

the role

ofwoman as aggressor, woman using her physical strength,

nonethe-less those women who are fighting for freedom and for food under

dictatorships understand very well the necessity of their actions. To

make women keepers of a higher moral code that excludes the use of

their own physical strength denies them life-supporting choices, and

lets men off the hook by lessening the moral dilemma that men should

face.

We invite your comments.

- Marion Colby

Shelagh Wilkinson

The Women's Review of Books (October, 1985)

To the Editors: affinnwomen in themili!aIYand

Asa veteran I take issue with certainly does not value our Beth Schneider and her review of experience as a tool for change.

Women and Men's Wars (Vol.IT, Sincerely Mary Moran

No. 11, August 1985). I find her ' academic feminist position to be

c1assist with no consciousness of women in uniform, especially those of us who have served for

thiscountry.

To Schneider's reference to women in themilitaryas "physi-cally not present in com1:iat," I want to worm/remind her that women have actively participated in World WarIT,Korea, and SE Asia. Women in the USarmed forces have been taken captive as POW's. Thousands of army nurses were exposed to Agent Orange. Most women who servecfin Vietnam suffer varying degrees of post traumatic stress syi1drome (combat fatigue).

We women have been and con-tinue to be a resource forchan~e

while on active dutr as well asID

our veteran capaoty. We chal-lenge women's second class sta-tus within themilitaryand have succeeded in effecting changes. We confront the Veterans Admi-nistration onalllevels, but espe-cial1y in relation to women's issues like equal access to medical treatment.

Inher review, Schneiderfailsto

La Vie En Rose

(October

1985)

De Pacifistes ou miIitaristes: Faitesvos jeux

Lorsd'une campagne de· presse bien orchestree, le lieute-nant-colonel Shirley Robinson, une Canadienne, s'est etonnee de.ce que certaines feministes n'entrent pas dans sa croisade

po~quelesJemmes.soient admises dans I'annee.·..

A.

mon avis, il est grand. temps d'admettre que divers courants agitent le feminismeet que certains sont diametrale-ment opposes tant par les valeurs qu'lls privilegient que par les objectifs qu'lls mettent de l'avant. ... Le feminisme de promo-tioncollective, par ailleurs, croit que les femmes ont mieux

a

faire que de passer de la d()mination des maris

a

celle des colonels, fussent-lls femmes. L'urgence, pourles femmes, n'est pas d'acceder aux structures d'oppression pour le consolider mais au contraire, de lutter contre toutes les formes de militarisa-tion de la societe.

D'ailleurs, les feministes qui veulent integrer les femmes dansl'armee ne contestent en rien les buts et les pratiques d'une societe militariste, elles contestent uniquement le fait que les femmes en soient exc1ues. . .Lafeminisation del'armee est done une operation politique qui, sous couvert d'egalite des droits, vise

a

faire adherer les femmes aux objectifs de guerre...

n

est important de soulignltr, par ailleurs, que la participation des femmes aux luttes de liberation nationale n'a rien

a

voir avec I'integration des femmes aux forces armees. Pourquoi? Parce quela violence dans le dernier cas est assimiIee

a

un processus de domination, celui des pays riches sur les pays pauvres, alors que pour les femmes du Tiers monde, la lutte arInee n'est souvent pas un choix mais bien leur seule porte de sortie. . . En tant que feministes, que choisirons-nous : le pacifisme ou le militarisme?

Solange Vincent

FeminisfActionFeministe

(October

1985)

Women and the military: NAC. takes a •stand

"1 cannot, as a feministinCana4a today, doanytmngbutfight agamst a policy of overt discrimination:'. With that statement, former Executive member Carole Wallace concluded her presentation onthe."obviously difficult question" of the role of women in the Canadian Armed Forces, •. •• •. •• . .. .

Wallace was arguing for recommendations made in her brief on the armed forces' application for an exemption to Section IS. of the Charter. She explained that she became involved in the issue through working on the case of a high-ranking officer who was fighting for maternity leave.

Along-time peace activist, Wallace said, "I believe there. is a place for the military in Canadian society in terms of peacekeeping,· natural disasters. and national sovereignty. Then one must go the next step and say there is a role forwomenin the military and it should be an equal role:' ... Not only are there explicitrestrictions on the military jobs women can hold, but there are also numerical restrictions. "Life is pretty hellish," she said. In this "last bastion of overt male supremacy," pregnant women are denied sick leave. Wives of military men have been denied the right to rent videos from base stores without their husbands' signatures. "What should NAC's position be?" she asked.

Survival committee member Betsy Carrresponded that"NACis against the arms race and the social deprivation and oppression that result from militarism. Feminists who would integrate women into the armed forces do not question the present system:'

Marjorie Cohen, co-chair of the Employment&Economy committee, introdUCed a compromised position developed out of an all-day meeting last July.

The Executive adopted the following resolution:

1.NAC first and foremost wants to emphasize its anti-military stand. 2. Under no circumstances should there be an exemption to Section IS. of the Charter of Rights. As a result, all trades and classifications in the Armed Forces should be open to women.

3. NAC does not advocate women's involvement in the military.

4. Pregnant servicewomen should be accorded sick leave on the same basis as other personnel.

s..Military service for purposes of promotion eligibility should accumulate during the period designated as maternity leave.

6. Maternity benefits in the Canadian Forces should be brought into line with benefits enjoyed by members of the public service.

7. Servicewomen who become mothers should be accorded the same access to compassionate leave as is granted to other members of the military.

8. The policy which bars homosexuals from serving in the Canadian Forces should be rescinded.

9. NAC supports the rights of spouses of Canada military personnel to organize for equality and improve benefits for themselves and their families on military bases.

When Section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms dealing with equality rights became law on 17 April 1985, it heralded in a new era for the women of this country, inasmuch as dis-crimination on the basis of sex (among other things) will no longer be tolerated unless

bona fide

occupational reasons can be established.

This of course means that women now have legal access to occupations tradi-tionally held by men. They now have choices of employment; and repugnant as it may be to some, that must include combat roles in the Canadian Armed Forces. After all, it is the responsibility of every citizen to help defend the nation by bearing armsifthe rights and freedoms of that nation are directly or indirectly threatened. Historically, Canadian women have been denied that right of citizenship, even though the nation has been threatened by outside forces on more than one occasion. Canadian women are still second-class citizens. Moreover, with the growing trend toward anti-militarism, it is perhaps timely to point out that Canada's armed forces play

a vital role, not only for defence purposes, but in activities such as protection of our sovereignty by sea and air surveillance, aid to the civil powers and United Nations peacekeeping. The need for police and firefighting forces is generally accepted. Why then should the need for defence forces be less so?

Women have been part of Canada's armed forces for one hundred years. In 1885, during the North-West Rebellion, nursing sisters (as military nurses were traditionally called) took the field with Canadian troops and were for the first time recognized as members of a military force engaged in a theatre of active operations. Ever since then nurses have served continuously in this nation's armed forces. They have been killed and wounded in action during both World Wars.1_{Canadian women serving in a}

combat environment is not new. Women other than nurses have served intermittently over the years. When the need arose they were enrolled to release men to fight, but were quickly demo-bilized when the crisis was over. However, it was the 1970 Royal

Com-mission on the Status of Women which pressured the Department of National Defence to improve conditions of service for military women. The Commission brought forth six recommendations con-cerning servicewomen; over the yearsall

have been met - except the first and most important one: the recommendation that alltrades and classifications (occupations) of the Canadian Forces be opened to women. Today, fifteen years later, only 91 of the 133 military occupations are open or partially open to women. The remainder,

all combat-related, prohibit the employ-ment of women. And notwithstanding Section 15 of the Charter, the Canadian Forces have no intention of opening all occupations to women, because they contend that their "combat effectiveness could well be jeopardizedifwomen were employed in combat roles."2

(Servicewomen in Non-Traditional Environments and Roles) has been con-ducted since 1979 that includes land, sea and air operations as well as service in a remote location. No degradation in operational effectiveness has been re-ported, despite the presence of women in these non-traditional jobs. Nevertheless, much speculation and many assumptions concerning women have been offered in attempting to justify the continuance of an outdated, discriminatory policy. These opinions are based primarily on myths and prejudicialstereotypes about women. No hard evidence has ever been produced in support of such attitudes. In fact, all evidence confirms that women have been combatants in times of war and continue to be; and, skepticism aside, they have conducted themselves just as well and, in some cases, better than their male coun-terparts. Let's look at some of the most-often voiced "reasons" for excluding women from combat roles.

The maintenance of unit cohesion, morale and discipline are often cited. The importance of these elements among combat personnel cannot be over-emphasized because these, combined with intensive training, are the overriding factors in winning battles. However, it is implied that women have no place in this scenario because of perceived sexual attraction, men's traditional protective attitudes toward women, and because men don't believe that women have what it takes to kill other human beings in hand-to-hand combat. Military leaders contend that the presence of women would be too disruptive and would lead to a break-down of the fighting unit.

Implication is not fact; nor can women be faulted for attitudinal weaknesses exhi-bited by men. The fact is that mixed-gender units have existed in this country for at least one hundred years, and there is no evidence whatsoever of any significant erosion of discipline, unit cohesion or morale due to sexual attraction. Why would there be on the battlefield, where combatants would be occupied with more immediate concerns - such as staying alive?Itis ludicrous to think that, in the heat and dirt of battle, there would be time for romantic liaisons. Close attachments would perhaps be formed, because there have always been close friendships among combat soldiers. Such "bonding" transcends romantic attachments and stimulates combatants to fight more fiercely when one of their number is killed.

VOLUME 6, NUMBER 4

The argument for excluding women from combat because of men's protective attitude towards women derives from one of society's most lofty ideals; protection of the weak. But does today's woman see herself as weak? I think not. Protection can be seen as something given by the strong or "superior" to the less able or "inferior" (that which is given to a developing nation or a child - not to an adult).

Adverse public opinion is also quoted as a reason for excluding women from combat. However, public opinion polls conducted in the late 1970s and early 1980s indicated that the majority of Canadians favoured some form of combat service for women.3_{Itwould seem that the public}

supports justice over bigotry. After all,

why should it be acceptable for young men to kill and be killed but not young women? One of the principal themes of those who oppose women in combat is that women should not be subjected to the sufferings of war, but should instead devote themselves primarily to the prop-agation of the species. Yet women have suffered in wars since the beginning of time. They have been exposed to violent death, mutilating injuries, and capture as prisoners. Just because these women were and are mostly civilians doesn't make it any less horrendous. The difficul-ty military men and parts of sociedifficul-ty seem to have is with women bearing arms in order to defend themselves and their terri-tory. As for propagating the species, it cannot be assumed that every woman

"lf the Canadian Forces gain exemption from the Charter ofRights

and Freedoms, a dangerous precedent will have been set: it will be a signal

to

the people of Canada that women can continue

to

be excluded from certain

employment solely because men don't want them there."

aspires to (or should) become a mother. In today's society women have many options. Yet it is hard to break with custom in a society which still teaches its offspring phrases such as "women and children first."

One of the most used (and over-emphasized) excuses for excluding women from combat roles is the physical strength and endurance issue. Various research findings are often quoted by defenders of present policy. It is im-portant to remember, though, that the conventional assumption underlying research is that no difference exists between groups until a difference is demonstrated, and that much research is sexist. Itis true that the

average

woman today is weaker in upper body strength that the average man. However,ifa cer-tain level of physical strength is required for a particular job, then this should serve as one of the selection criteria for the job.4

Rather than assuming that all women are incapable of performance by virtue of the average woman's lack of physical strength, specific requirements should serve as the selection criteria, not gender. By the same token, we cannot assume that all men are capable of performing jobs that require a high level of upper body strength. Not all men meet the strength requirements for certain combat roles: all men, however, are not excluded from combat. And if the trend towards increased participation in sports by young girls continues, we can expect Canadian women of the future to be considerably more physically fit.

In certain other ways women are not the weaker sex at all. Ithas been shown that, while exercising, women show fatigue less than men do. This can be attri-buted to the fact that women's muscles produce less lactic acid - a byproduct of exercise which causes fatigue. And women actually endure better than men: male infants are at higher risk prior to and after birth than females; more male fetuses abort spontaneously; boys are more likely to die of congenital conditions, illnesses, infections and accidents; males also die earlier.5 _{Women's bodies are}

better insulated and therefore lose less heat in cold weather than men's: in extreme weather conditions women can

survive longer on little or no food because they have more subcutaneous fat to sustain them. Heart rate and blood sugar tests have also shown that women can tolerate noise better than men.6_{And there}

is currently no evidence to substantiate claims often made that women would be less capable of performing under the stress of combat then men. There is, however, a great deal of evidence show-ing that military women have performed on a par with their male peers in situations of severe psychological pressure; this includes documented descriptions of the reactions of women in the Second World War (among them, women who were prisoners of war).7 And let us not forget the Canadian nurses who proved their physical and emotional stamina while performing their jobs under combat con-ditions.

Women have established that they can endure the hardships of battle. During the American War of Independence tens of thousands of women were involved in active combat;8 in the Second World War Soviet and Yugoslavian women fought and died in battle, as did women during the Israeli wars in 1948and 1967. These women fought with great courage and skill: no evidence has been produced to suggest that the presence of women caused any deterioration in the units' combat effectiveness.9_{And we must not}

forget the Resistance fighters, the Vietnamese War and numerous other conflicts when women fought alongside men. Although it has been argued that women are called upon to fight only when the homeland is invaded, Soviet women soldiers fought their way into Germany near the end of the Second World War. Why is it that, when the conflict is over, women are demobilized and expected to return to their traditional roles? That ques-tion can be answered only by the men in power who made those decisions.

It is assumed that Canadian combat formations containing women might not be acceptable to other countries. The fact is that when Canada had military women with our United Nations Peacekeeping Forces in the Middle East(1975-79)they performed admirably and

were

accepted by other nations. Although the necessary authority still exists to send servicewomen

with our UN Forces, none have been sent since1979, not because of other nations' perceptions of women, but because of the perceptions of Canadian military men! Excuses such as accommodation problems and the risk factor are used to keep our military women out of UN service.Ifrisk is such a problem, why then do other nations have military women with their UN forces? What about civilian women serving with the UN, including women reporters? Accommodation is a problem only when excuses are being sought to keep women out of certain areas.

In any case, the prejudicial attitudes and perceptions of other nations should not be allowed to take precedence over that which is now entrenched in Canadian law. Notwithstanding the slow progress made over the years in employ-ment opportunities for servicewomen, the most important goal has not yet been reached. Surely it is time for Canada to place less emphasis on outside influence and approval from other nations.

There are no legitimate occupational reasons for excluding

all

women from combat roles. Nor is there any evidence to support the military's contention that combat effectiveness would be jeopar-dized if women were introduced into fighting units. There is no doubt that the present policy of the Canadian Forces is in contravention of the law of the land and must be struck down. Just as military effectiveness is the goal, so should be justice and civic responsibility.

originates. The presence of women is much more consistent with this objective than the preservation of an antiquated, machismo ethos. Is it not time for the Canadian Forces to be brought into the 1980s - where they belong?

lCo1. G. W.G. Nicholson,

Canada's

Nursing Sisters

(Toronto: Samuel Stevens Hakkert and Company, 1975), p. 1.

2Canadian Forces Policy On The

Employ-ment Of Women

(17 March 1985).

CHOICES

Your catis named "Dabby Grey". You were babies together,

n()\Vyou're both five, and I'm allergic to cats.

Eyes blazing you tell your father "Keep the cat, get rid of ..." I nearly choke

but supposing the cat were mine, you were allergic . . .

SNOW WHITE

Mirrors never lie,

in illness you grow fairer,

skin snow iris,

eyes sad black moons, blonde hair damp with fever

For weeks he sleeps beside you

Moved by love and something

darker Istroke your face

tempt you with delicacies

Donna Langevin

Toronto, Ontario

VOLUME 6, NUMBER 4

3Directorate of Women Personnel

(National Defence Headquarters, 1984).

4Mady Wechsler Segal,

The Argument for

Female Combatants

(Chicago: Inter-University Seminar on Armed Forces and Society, 1980), p. 271.

5Statistics Canada,

1985.

6University of Toronto,

Department of Athletics and Recreation, 1985.

7Segal, pp. 274-275.

8Linda Grant De Pauw,

Women In

Combat, The Revolutionary War Experience

(George Washington University, Armed

IN A GLASS HOUSE

(poems for my step daughter)

BATH

Ponytail, wild filly legs,

you capturehim

with skittish looks.

Young enough

to nip the towel from his thighs,

share the tub he laughs

and soaps you down.

WhenI watch you prancing wet,

his unbridled gaze

my eyes are whips.

POSTER OF A MISSING

CHILD

afraid to sleep

dead in all my dreams

"girl six, blue jumper, carrying a recorder,

last seen ..." never met would recognize anywhere

so much like

you fighting me for life today

screamed and bit how many

times my demon dreams trembling in blood cellars

betrayed that picture face

Forces and Society, 1981), p. 209. 9Nancy Loring Goldman,

Female Soldiers

- Combatants or Noncombatants

(Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1982), p. 5.

Lieutenant-Colonel (Retired) Shirley

M.

Robinson served for thirty years as a Nursing

Officer (enlisted originally in the Royal

Canadian Air Force). In her last Canadian

Forces appointment, she worked as Deputy

Director of Women Personnel, National

Defence Headquarters, Ottawa.

GLASS

Your mother's gone.

You pick at food, refuse to flush the toilet

dream you were born in a glass house, sleptina blue glass cradle

pretend she's a far off

magic queen, rub an old stone and she speaks to you,

understands when you say

you tried your best to make the kitten swim

but it drownedinthe puddle.

GRAFFITI

"You're not my mother, you can't make me."

I lock you spitting, stamping in your room, only to find you glaring from the kitchen wall indelible in bristling hair,

jagged teeth, protruding tongue. I'd haul you down, force you to

scrub,

but knowing tomorrow you'd crayon the cupboards, scrawl behind doors,

I go upstairs, unlock rage no coat of paint

willever hide.